If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Thank you Beesource

Yesterday I traveled to the home of Craig Cella to attend the PSBA - Pennsylvania State Beekeepers Association - annual summer picnic. I was one of the featured speakers doing the morning program, with Warren Miller. My talk was centered on queen rearing. Much of the discussion and the conversations throughout the day dealt with queen rearing, problems within the industry, the benefits of raising your own queens, and where the industry is at in today's terms of quality and associated problems. Questions about southern queens, nucs, problems with packages, chemicals, and a host of concerns were discussed.

I mention this because one of the unforeseen positives that came about, were discussions about a letter that Gingerbee had sent out to all suppliers in Pennsylvania. Based on a discussion we had a few weeks ago, (she notified by letter), suppliers were told about and references to the beesource thread shown below, were made. It drummed up many conversations and actually fit nicely into the days talk. Craig cella, an inspector himself who received a letter from Ginger could not agree more with my comments.

All those that I spoke to about in regards to this letter and the items covered all agreed with my comments had merit and knew what was being said. And although there may be a supplier that disagrees with my comments, certainly 99% knew where I was coming from.

The letter has been great for making people aware of potential risk and real happenings within the industry, based on the items mentioned in the original thread.

One point in the letter, that I may not agree with was "Bjorn Apiaries is also a supplier of nucs in the area and could benefit financially by these actions". I have made it a point, and even mentioned several times my lack of desire to advertise and sell on beesource, for reasons I will not go into here. Other than my website, which just was posted in January, I have stopped advertising nucs and queens on beesource two years ago (although I think I did sell about 6 excess queens I had last year.) So to even think that I come to a discussion group as beesource, and provide information, based on motives of making a profit, is somewhat humorous. Discussing such things, with comments from ginger's letter suggesting "I could benefit financially", all the while telling people how to raise their own queens and do their own splits....can hardly be called "profitable'.

So make lemonade when given lemons. And when the crowd all drinks lemonade (Or agrees with such comments that I made) those unexpected lemons thrown your way actually are seen as good things. The letter, although leaving me with a wonderment of "why", also is one of the best things that can happen with expanded discussions of such matters, and I guess is good for beesource as perhaps some people not viewing here before, now know about the site.

I guess mentioning this letter is good to let others know that such items do occur. That perhaps they would be caught off guard by such motivations of others. Although I was cuaght off guard, and never dreamed that Ginger would write such letters based on discussions here on beesource, it has been a wonderful thing. Those here on beesource mainly understood what I was saying, and that is the same outside beesource. And if your that supplier of products that I so commented about, perhaps knowing such discussions are going on, can motivate change and have positive results in the future.

I know Barry has commented a few months back about discussion on beesource that carry over to outside communication channels, and his stance on such matters. I ask that this be seen a something positive, and other than perhaps letting others be aware that comments made on beesource may be motivating for such letter writing by a few, it all worked out nicely this time. I will forward a copy of the letter to barry so he can confirm my comments.

So Thank you to Beesource for allowing such discussions and allowing many people to see such matters in the open. And thank you to ginger for the letter. Although I think that the letter was probably written for reasons less than what I am commenting, they have turned out to be quite the positive thing.

Please see the thread below. Although some of the posts were deleted, you can still get the true meaning of what was being said.

I stand by the letter and the reasons for writing it, which I made clear in the course of discussions that you provide the link for and will reiterate here- the suggestive AFB discussion there, the old comb discussion and your refusal to name beekeepers you were speaking of. If you have a hard time understanding that perhaps you just don't want to.

And other beekeepers in Pennsylvania stand to lose and yourself to gain, whether you advertise on Beesource or not. Your argument to the contrary is ridiculous.

Also ridiculous is your statement of seeing such matter in the open. If you truly wanted them in the open you would have no problem addressing them forthrightly.

Further, not everyone in the Pennsylvania beekeeping community agrees with what you said. In response to my letter, one wrote that in his opinion whatever information you obtained as a state inspector ethically should remain private. In deference to his communication I will respect his privacy, but he is well known and respected in the community of Pennsylvania beekeepers.

On your website you state that you perform private inspections and all inspections are confidential. Confidential, I guess until you begin berating other Pennsylvania beekeepers behind their backs.

So your self serving post can influence whomever is stupid enough to buy into your arguments.

Try to learn something new every day and give thanks for all your blessings.

gingerbee wrote "In deference to his communication I will respect his privacy, but he is well known and respected in the community of Pennsylvania beekeepers."

Seems to me you are doing exactly of what you accused BB of doing in the original post "21 cells, then 2 cells."

I don't know BB anymore then I know gingerbee, but three things come to my mind with I read that thread. One is that without doubt chemicals are playing a part in hive health; two, buyer be informed when buying any agricultural product, including bees, nucs or hives and three there is some bad blood between gingerbee and BB that those of us not in PA are unaware of.

Also it would appear that this type of post "So your self serving post can influence whomever is stupid enough to buy into your arguments." is nothing short of baiting and insulting to others that may have a different view point then gingerbee...

As they say around here, I don't have a dog in this fight.
It seems though, to me, that by starting this new thread BB is attempting to renew the dispute. Haven't you guys already beaten this dead horse enough?

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

gingerbee wrote "In deference to his communication I will respect his privacy, but he is well known and respected in the community of Pennsylvania beekeepers."

Seems to me you are doing exactly of what you accused BB of doing in the original post "21 cells, then 2 cells."

I don't know BB anymore then I know gingerbee, but three things come to my mind with I read that thread. One is that without doubt chemicals are playing a part in hive health; two, buyer be informed when buying any agricultural product, including bees, nucs or hives and three there is some bad blood between gingerbee and BB that those of us not in PA are unaware of.

Also it would appear that this type of post "So your self serving post can influence whomever is stupid enough to buy into your arguments." is nothing short of baiting and insulting to others that may have a different view point then gingerbee...

You hit the nail on the head alpha. One only needs to look at cockhill apiary website to see that while promoting their own product, they demean other beekeepers, commercial one's at that, by suggesting (in the minds of the readers) their (other people's honey) product is somehow "tainted" by chemicals and antibiotics.

But cry over others they do, while doing the same as they are claiming others are doing. Go figure!

But I will not ask that ginger "name" names and provide a list of these so-called villains in the industry. I think it's something most understand does happen, and is probably true. But I wonder if those same commercial people she openly admits of selling tainted honey, are the same one's I have mentioned with selling nucs and tainted comb. I only wonder...... How could it be true for honey, but not true for the wax that are in the nucs? Crazy isn't it? Supers, or at least the honey they hold, are somehow contaminated, but the brood boxes, full of comb being sold off in nucs, are not. Just CRAZY I tell you! It was quite a shock to read her stance and promotion of her products, especially after the letter writing campaign she initiated.

And I'm not even sure about claiming "organic' and yet saying one is "non-certified". I'll have to think about that one.

I guess living in one's own world, void of any mirrors, is best for some...

7 CFR §205.100(a) provides that operations that produce or handle agricultural products intended
to be sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic”
must be certified according to the provisions of subpart E (Certification) and must meet all other
applicable requirements of 7 CFR Part 205.

We had part of this conversation with Duane and Bonnie on Sunday while they were at our meeting in Hastings - she is really careful about what she says and we could not even get her to say AFB. She wouldn't even put "burn the hive" in the same sentence. She did say something about "once" finding someone who had something "very bad" in their hives, and that the person just wanted to let it go and throw more boxes on. No implying, no 'Giving the person just enough to draw a conclusion', just a clean warning and a clear point about not giving out others' information. I'd love to know, but I really think that that's the way it should be.

You have to look at it this way - just as with a doctor - a doctor would be allowed to say "I treated an AIDS patient last week", but he would not [and should not] tell you who he was treating. He also really shouldn't even give details, lest someone do some prying and find out - it'd be a violation of doctor-patient confidentaility. It just wouldn't be ethical. Same deal here. Bonnie is even more careful than Mike was, for which I think she deserves credit. The state inspection program has neither the need, funds, time, nor reason to become a "rumormill".